I was listening to some discussion on Radio 5 this morning about this news item, in which the anti-boxing participant (Peter McCabe - chief executive of Headway, a brain injuries charity) went on to voice his support for the BMA's call for boxing to be banned.
The BMA is not professionally competent to argue that boxing should be banned. It is professionally competent to argue that boxing is physically harmful, but that is not the same thing. The question of the harmfulness of boxing is a medical one, but the debate about whether it should be banned is a political and ethical one, which medical expertise can inform but not decide.
I take the liberal view that adults* should be entitled to knowingly expose themselves to risk. Such a choice involves weighing up the costs and benefits of different courses of action. In the case of boxing, the BMA is only qualified to comment on one element of the cost - risk to health. There are many other factors in the decision, including: time, effort, and money expended on training and equipment (costs); enjoyment, physical fitness, and the possibility of professional success, status and wealth (benefits). There are others (such as boxing coaches) who may be qualified to give advice on other elements of this equation, but the only person who is competent to weigh costs against benefits, deciding how much value he places on each element, to reach a decision, is the individual.
*This post is intended to discuss the general issue of the status of boxing. I am aware, with reference to the original story, that liberalism does not demand for children the same liberty to take risks that is granted to adults, and that the school could be in the wrong if the activities offered ('fitness for boxing' and sparring) expose children to unacceptable risk.
